There is a theory that, developmentally, women were made to be gang-banged - with their consent I hasten to add. I do not know if this is true but there is some evidence to support the theory:
1. A woman's response to sexual stimulation is slower in general than the male. So the male achieves his 'climax' sooner than the woman and the woman is left wanting or needing more in order to achieve her 'climax'. So another man is needed.
2. A woman is capable of multiple orgasms so that even after she achieves her first, she is left wanting, or at least being capable of having, another..and another..and another ad infinitum - and thus needs more males to bring this about. Why else should she be capable of experiencing multiple orgasms?
3. When a single load of sperm is deposited in her, the strongest, fastest, healthiest spermatozoon from this single load will fertilise her egg. When there are four or five loads in the woman, the strongest of the four or five will fertilise her egg. This provides a better chance of a successful conception and a healthy fetus, at least in theory.
Does anyone know of a culture where gang-banging is the norm? Any other thoughts?
- Pornmaster Mike, if you see my love Nautica and her friend Ms. Taliana send them my way! There's also room for Charmane... oh, Teagan theres a spot on my face you can sit on! www.adultdv-depot.com
Well, since I believe that penile penetration intercourse is the ultimate Rube Goldberg route to female orgasm - then sure, your theory holds up just fine.
Practically speaking, I'm pretty much sure that if one fails to bring pleasure, you don't ask the next one to jump on - you look for a better alternative. I know that's my solution.
Just for the record, I have timed myself - I can reach orgasm with proper stimulation in under 30 seconds. Multiple partners are completely unnecessary - indeed, NO partner was necessary .
..okay..but the question was why a woman is capable of experiencing multiple orgasms. Nature is very thrifty (and practical) so what purpose does this serve?
JP, women can experience multiple orgasms because they are blessed with one of the most wonderous and mysterious things known to humankind: the clitoris. Consider it God's way of letting us males know who's really in control of the world.
You have an appendix. What purpose does it serve? Sometimes things exist simply because there's no reason for them not to. You say nature is thrifty and practical when actually nature just doesn't give a damn. If you survive with that thingy, then fine; if you don't, whatever.
I imagine that he who comes first will have a greater chance of being replicated...sperm are delivered to where they need to be within 90 seconds of release, the first guys sperm have a greater chance of meeting that egg in a fallopian tube than any other later comers.
Perhaps multiple orgasm is theoretically more likely to keep a woman on her back longer.You know the scene, she's blissed out,flushed, glassy eyed, languid... Gives the swimmers an easier swim. Possibly the same reason many men feel tired and sleepy and potentially start snoring directly after orgasm. Staying inside the female may have benefits in assisting the swimmers ie no outward suction on withdrawal of the penis (god doesn't that all sound sexy?)
More orgasms equal more wavelike contractions of the cervix and uterus assisting the swimmers to reach the fallopian tubes.
Male orgasm may have been designed to occur quickly for a safety point of view? In the wilds he's likely to be the one with his back to the wild marauding people eating animals.
Nature is abundant and generous, why else pack something the size of a clitoris with the same number of nerve endings as the head of a penis and give it no other purpose than pleasure?
"Mother Nature" is a woman and the potential for multiple orgasm is recompense for all the less joyous stuff we have deal with?
I just knew my old college text books would come in handy some day...
Taken from Article 16: Evolution of the Big O, by Karen Wright. From Discover, June 1992, pp.53,56-58. ...Why should women have the capacity for climax when they can make babies perfectly well without it? In Darwinian terms, what is the adaptive value of the female orgasm? No one questions the Darwinian wisdom of the mammalian male orgasm. The first male to demonstrate such an aptitude would be inclined to indulge it so ferociously that other males' anorgasmic sex drives would pale in comparison. Adaptation can also explain the relative speed with which males achieve their bliss. Since the limiting factor in male reproductive success is usually the availability of receptive females, when said females make themselves available, a guy who can work fast has a distinct advantage over the slow male. He begets more kids, for one, and he is also less likely to fall prey to enemies that might attack while a couple is flagrante delicto. Furthermore, the less time it takes to philander, the more time there is to eat - another essential component of survival. Female reproductive success, in contrast, is usually limited by the availability of resources to sustain mother and child through pregnancy, labor, and nursing, rather than an availability of mating partners. Because most females must gestate and raise their offspring, repeated bouts of lovemaking yield diminishing returns where conception is concerned and interfere considerably with the duties of motherhood. There is no strong evidence that orgasm in females directly contributes to fertility or fecundity. So why is it there at all? Some evolutionary theorists, including Desmond Morris, maintain that human female orgasm was adaptive because it helped cement the "pair-bond" between ancestral parents that was necessary to ensure the survival of vulnerable infants. If the woman is rewarded during sex as much as (or more than) the man, goes the theory, then she will remain perpetually eager for intercourse and retain her allure with her mate, who will be less likely to stray. Scientists had also speculated that female orgasm aided conception by keeping a woman on her back long enough for her to ensure insemination, or by actively sucking sperm up into the uterus (an idea whose time has gone, since the contractions that accompany climax turn out to be expulsive.) Such theories assume that female orgasm is a reliable companion of copulation. But as Alfred Kinsey announced in his landmark 1953 report, it's not. Kinsey's interviews with nearly 6,000 women, as well as subsequent surveys, revealed that the vast majority of women do not climax during sexual intercourse without direct stimulation of the clitoris. Even in today's era of relative enlightenment, the most recent statistics from the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction show that fewer than half the women surveyed achieve orgasm through intercourse. The disparity between the reproductive act and the orgasmic reflex prompted Shere Hite, in her controversial 1976 Hite Report, to call sexual intercourse the Rube Goldberg method of female sexual fulfillment. Such data present a conundrum to anyone who wants to argue that female orgasm is a sexually selected trait. John Alcock suggests that the legerdemain required to bring about the effect may have helped our foremothers distinguish between the sensitive guys who would make good parents and the love-'em-and-leave-'em louts. But the bitter truth, as Margaret Mead pointed out, is that many, many, human cultures don't even recognize that women can enjoy sex, let alone climax the way men do. If female orgasm is an adaptive behavior, then there are plenty of women whose genes are headed the way of the dinosaurs. The tenuous link between orgasm and intercourse in women has led other theoriests, including Donald Symons, to conclude that the female climax is more accident than adaptation. "Saying that a trait is adaptive is diferent from saying a trait has an evolutionary history," says Symons. "Everything has an evolutionary history. To show that something is an adaptation, you have to be able to explain the how and the why, show that is has some kind of special design, a design that solved a specific problem. "In the case of males, the design argument makes good sense. Male orgasm doesn't occur at just any time - there's this intense burst of pleasure that accompanies ejaculation, which is of extreme reproductive significance," he says. "That's an obvious adaptation." Symons says that the most parsimonious interpretation of the evidence is that the female orgasm is a by-product, like male nipples, that exists merely because the same trait in the opposite sex confers a selective advantage. In other words, male orgasm by way of the penis is a smashing success, and since the clitoris is made from the same fetal tissue as the penis, it can't but precipitate orgasms too...
So anyhow, there's more before and more after, and there are several other wonderful articles relating to the subject matter, but that mostly sums up my opinion.
Gives a woman incentive to be a baby machine. Really, males of any species are ready to mate as long as a receptive female is around. In a species with no set breeding season, what is the female's incentive to mate? To add to this point, notice that women in their mid-30's get hornier - just the age where their normal reproductive years end. Nature's way of perpetuating.
Speaking of the magic little dynamo, I once rubbed my girlfriend's clit when she was asleep. She was in just her panties at the time and lying in a position that gave me access bewteen her legs. I didn't rub hard enough to wake her but just light enough to see what her reaction would be. At first she just continued sleeping but after a few minutes she started to moan lightly. I didn't want to actually wake her so I just kept rubbing as gently as I could. She continued to moan and started to shift her legs so I had to quickly move my hand away. I couldn't continue stimulating her without her waking up so I stopped but not before I noticed a wet spot on the crotch of her underwear which wasn't there before. To this day I wonder what influence I had on her dreams that night.
Although I should preface this with the notion that I am not yet a full physician, and am still a medical student, there are actually valid medical reasons that have been uncovered that validate the need for (multiple) female orgasm. With that in mind, I didn't do a literature search before writing this, so it is not complete.
Recent research tells us that the female's orgasm triggers a sustained, muscular contraction of the cervix that lasts the duration of the orgasm. The value of this contraction is that it "dips" the cervix into the pool of sperm deposited by the male. This, in turn, greatly increases the chance of conception, as it allows the sperm a greater probability of traveling through the uterus than would normally be achieved.
Additionally, in regard to the multiple depositions of sperm, it was recently discovered that not all sperm have the same ultimate goal of trying to reach the egg. A certain portion of the sperm have the exclusive purpose of functioning as "killer sperm", with a goal of attacking and neutralizing foreign (i.e. non-self) sperm. Again, this allows the other self sperm, which have the function of achieving conception, a greater chance of success in a mixed-sperm environment. Many people notice that human semen has an odour of bleach. Much of this is caused by the reactive oxygen intermediates (ROIs) used to kill foreign sperm.
There's a bunch more I should probably add, but I need to go study for my licensing exams. If you have any questions, related or not, let me know.
Interesting...what do you mean by foreign (non-self) killer sperm? According to your theory in a mixed-sperm environment any sperm which sees another sperm as 'foreign' will attempt to wipe it out. Not a recipe for success I would have thought .
According to the stated theory, some (not all) sperm is designed to seek and destroy sperm from "competing" males. Enhances the odds of one from your team getting into the endzone. Natures offensive linemen.
But how would this process favour your team over the other teams? In other words, there is no way in which your sperm can be recognised as 'self' and the others as 'non-self'.
All this talk of sperm cells has got me thinking. They obviously are alive and moving to seek out their main objective the female egg. But my question is: do they have a brain? I'd hate to think I'm committing mass murder every time I squeeze one off to my fave porn.
"Each of the components of the sperm has a specific function. Their overall job is to get their payload, the haploid male nucleus, into the egg cytoplasm where it can fuse with the female pronucleus to form the diploid, zygote nucleus."
Prof.D.O'day University of Toronto
And the scentsitive sperm...
In the March 28, 2003 issue of Science , Marc Spehr and his colleagues of Ruhr University in Germany report that human sperm have olfactory receptors similar to those used to detect smells by the nose. They suggest that active sperm normally home in on several chemical scents. In experiments with a chemical called bourgeonal, sperm changed directions and headed for it at a much accelerated speed. The authors believe that egg cells very likely produce sperm attractants similar to bourgeonal, though they have not yet been found. This research potentially could lead to breakthroughs in birth control and fertility treatments.
Sperm cells, from what I've read also have heat sensing capabilities and generally head for the warmer climate of the upper ends of the fallopian tubes. The average single ejaculation can contain between 200 and 600 million sperm cells. Of these, only about 100 or so will make it to the fallopian tubes.
But the wild things cried, "Oh please don't go- we'll eat you up-we love you so!" Where The Wild Things Are, Maurice Sendak
Why not? It could be a "group scent" sort of thing. The equivalent in a multi-cellular level is how in high school a clique will dress the same and pretend to have the same opinions.
In regards to sperm recognizing the "foreign team" it would likely be the same way antibodies and the like recognize foreign matter. The phospholipid bilayer that composes the walls of our cells has numerous chains of proteins extending from them. The exact type and number of these strings varies from tissue type to tissue type, and person to person.
Antibodies use this to recognize the invading cells they are supposed to attack to...their external protein configurations are complimentary configuration ONLY to that which they are supposed to bond.
I don't see why sperm cells couldn't have a similar mechanism, whereby they are all designed not to tangle with the protein of cells from the same organism, due to its unique configuration being self-incompatible, but would easily get caught up with and attack other, foreign, sperm cells.
And if you want to get technical Asmodeus, most of your body is a mass of tiny micro-organisms that just happen to get along really well. :p
You probably should be studying for your boards...
There is no increase in fertility due to orgasm. A lot of people have tried to give teliological arguments about it, none of which have borne out, so to speak. To be honest, the question isn't why MO's, but why female orgasms at all, evolutionarly speaking.
Also, the bleach thing? Think...if your own sperm are packaged in bleach to destroy other sperm, what do you think is happening to your own?
Without bogging you down in details, the vast majority of cells in one's body have on their surface certain gene products called class I and class II Major HistoCompatibility Complex (MHC) molecules. These MHC proteins have the ability to bind to foreign antigens and help cells discriminate between self (the body's) and nonself (anything not from the body). It is because of the immune system's ability to recognize self from non-self that we can fight off invaders such as bacteria, fungii, etc. If the body could not recognize itself, its immune system would kill both non-self and self cells, causing huge problems or even death. In fact, there are many "autoimmune" disorders in which the body's defenses accidentally kills its own tissue, such as lupus or insulin-dependant diabetes mellitus.
A more common occurrence you may have heard of is when someone gets an organ transplant and the organ was "rejected" by the body. This occurs because the body is able to differentiate between itself and foreign material, and it sees the transplanted organ as a foreign invader, and thus tries to kill it. This is the reason why people who receive transplants usually are on "immunosuppressive" therapy the rest of their lives. They take certain drugs to depress their immune system and prevent it from attacking the foreign organ. The only exception to this is transplants between identical twins. Because they contain the same genes, the body recognizes the other twin's organ just as the same as its own.
Lets break this one down, shall we? How does 'packaged bleach' emit odor? If you can smell it, it isn't packaged well, is it? And how does a reactive oxygen intermediate discriminate between 'self' and 'non-self' sperm?
Macrophages recognize pathogens by diferences in hydrophobicity or the presence of antibody (ADCC). T cells, NK cells, and CTL cells recognize the presence of foreign antigens in the context of MHC or the absence of MHC expression. They all use a targeting system that is specific for something that identifies a cell as foriegn. Since self and nonself sperm are pretty much functionally identical, packaged oxygen won't interfere with one package more than another.
Finally, CTL cells don't use Lysozyme. Thats a macrophage component. CTL's use the granzyme and caspase pathways. Lysozyme is found in body fluids, such as tears, and is a component of granules in neutrophils and eosinophils-parts of the old-school innate immunity.
I once had the choice of two different guys in my life at the same time, one who I could barely get aroused by(Guy#1), the other who was wonderful in bed (Guy#2), and with whom I had multiple orgasms without a problem. Guess which guy I wanted to spend time with - Guy#2. Sex with the first one was an utter bore for me. Sex with the second one was so good, I used to count the hours until I could see him again. If we hadn't been using birth control, I would definitely have gotten pregnant by Guy#2, since we had sex about every 2-3 days over a period of several months. And he and I would probably have managed to raise a baby well enough. With Guy#1, it would have been an absolute disaster. Plus, we would have been having sex less frequently even if we had stayed together, since I would have done my best to avoid it with him.
On the flip side, I think there's a psychological benefit for a man when he sees the woman having several orgasms. I've seen this a couple of times even in porn films - when the actor can readily see that the woman is climaxing or feeling a lot of pleasure, it seems easier for him to stay aroused, and he also appears to have a stronger orgasm (moaning more deeply, his stomach/legs trembling, feeling more pleasure), though I don't know if he actually ejaculates more sperm in this case or not.
There's a couple examples I can think of off the top of my head that show this. In RLD's XXX Road Trip #4, Erik Everhard is in every scene. But in Scene 2, he appeared to really like the actress Vanessa, who was clearly aroused by him. When he finally came, it looked like he was going to die from the pleasure. Some other ones are the second scene in Rocco Invade's Poland, the first Scene of RLD's Sport Fucking 1 with Steve Holmes, and Nacho Vidal in the fourth scene of his Back 2 Evil.
Back to the original post - A gang bang theory! Highly unlikely. If you ever watch a 3 man/one woman sex scene, the men are more interested in talking to each other, than in the woman and her pleasure. I have never seen a woman have an orgasm, or even look like they are feeling any pleasure during one of these scenes; at best she looks like she's just enduring it.
Renee said:Good point!! Even in high school it was evident to me that any sort of gang bang is a male bonding experience which only peripherally involves the woman. It's not "I had sex with her," it's "Ed and Frank and I went out and got laid."
Doesn't matter much whether he makes more or not...a little dab'l do ya.
I agree that most group scenes are more exercises in.. .exercise than they are hot and sexy. However, that is true for most porn. I can't imagine many female orgasms with the camera-friendly positioning they use.
I know you've seen the real gangbang, where the woman herself has decided that she wants this, so I can believe someone in that position would enjoy this very much. But what you see in porn films is so different from this situation, what with the guys always changing places, and the camera flitting about from one orifice to another. I agree with Lindi on this.
Back to my post about Steve Holmes above, he commented on that scene he did with the actress Tera Joy and Erik Everhard in a thread a couple months back. He said that he could definitely tell that Tera is having multiple orgasms (she's one of those lucky women who's whole body is involved in the action). He then went onto say that with other actresses, he can't tell if they are faking orgasms or not, which I found surprising, given the number of scenes the guy has done, and that even before porn he belonged to sex clubs. If someone this experienced has difficulty telling the real from the fake, what's a regular guy to do?
Of course, the woman knows if she's feeling the real thing or not, which would influence her choice of men that she wanted to be with. I'm talking about real life, not porn castings, however.
My point is that once you've seen a woman "wear out" a succession of men, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to posit female multiple orgasm as a part of a gang-bang/paternal uncertainty adaptation. If women had to endure what we see in a gang-bang video to gain the advantages of obscuring the paternaty of their babies, they might not be so quick to emply the tactic.
As for myself, I'm always rather suspicious of assigning the weight of survival advantage to human behavior. I find it helpful to read older socialogy/anthropology texts to see how much the politics of the time influence their "scientific ideas" of human nature.
For modern example, I've the film footage of the cervix dipping into the semen pool while in the throws of orgams. Interesting, but throughout all of human evolution, how many women have been having multilple orgasms will laying on their backs? I think our history with the missionary position is short enough to discount its effect (if any) on our evolution.
This whole discussion presupposes that female multiple orgasms are the norm, whose existence may offer some evolutionary advantage. Hello-oo! Some women can have multiple orgasms, but many women cannot. Some women are lucky to have one orgasm if any. I know there are women who can regularly have many orgasms with the right stimulation, as well as men who can orgasm several times with no refractory period. With enough practice and the right technique, many people can have multiple orgasms.
As far as gang bangs go, if it's a group of high school buddies and a girl just wanting attention, then it is likely that it's more of a male bonding experience. If it's an adult arrangement with the women actively seeking a group of men to satisfy her, then it really is all about her pleasure.
If you don't agree, I don't care. I've got a little experience with multiple orgasms and gang bangs. (I know, I know. I'm an opinionated bastard. )
And some women can with one fellow and can't with another. Perhaps it's all some ingenius plan to encourage women to stray, and thereby increasing the genetic diversity of their offspring. Wouldn't want all your eggs in one basket! (or give all your eggs to one sperm donor.)
The human mind has a miraculous ability to dissern pattern and meaning, even where there is none. Not everything has a reason. Somethings just are the way they are . Trying to figure out which is which is half the fun!
Yes I know this. With respect it was not the question. TheSeeker's first posting suggested that in a multiple sperm environment his sperm would have an advantage over other sperm. If his argument about 'killer' cells is true then it will apply equally to his sperm which the non-self sperm will be attempting to kill. It is not only the 'other' sperm which are affected by his antibodies. His sperm are affected by their antibodies just the same. So there is no such thing in a multi-sperm environment as 'self' and 'non-self' sperm. All the sperm are busy manufacturing antibodies against all the others....and the egg doesn't know the difference!
Having originated the thread I concede somewhat ruefully that my multiple orgasm theory is doomed to oblivion.
I'll avoid any more mind numbing immunological discussions and sum up my thoughts...
Multiple orgasms in a female...actually, orgasm at all...isn't a great evolutionary advantage. Have you ever seen a 1965 mustang? Its doors have a scoop...originally intended to cool the rear brakes. It was too expensive to make it functional, but they left it in because it looked great. Doesn't do anything vital, but damn nice window dressing.
I like the female orgasm, and the door of the mustang. I don't have to understand them completely to enjoy them.
Sexy Brunette Fucks Her Accountant - review by Danielmayu33216
Posted - Apr 22 2004 : 12:15PM
